(CNN) -- Canada officially renounced the expiring Kyoto Protocol on Monday, a day after international negotiators agreed to extend the treaty's limits on carbon emissions blamed for a warming climate.

Environment Minister Peter Kent said Ottawa would keep working to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and help negotiate a new framework for a global pact.

But in a statement to reporters on his return from last week's climate conference in South Africa, Kent said that for Canada, Kyoto "is in the past."

Click to expand...

The theory that human activity is primarily responsible for the increase in temperatures since 1850 is collapsing in terms of how many in the public buy into it. The recent cooling temperatures (no matter what statistical lies Hansen publishes from NASA) that we have seen for the last ten years, the realization of new factors that reduce likely human cause, and the revealed fudging of data and the conspiracy on the part of a handful of scientists to silence opponents, have them shunned as well as any publication that publishes sceptical work have all but destroeyd the AGW theory.

All I can say is 'About damned time' people started observing that the Emporer has no clothes.

There has been no cooling for the last decade. In fact, this has been the warmest decade on record. No matter which measure your use, GISS, HadCrut, or UAH, the last ten years have been the warmest on record, in spite of low TSI and several strong La Ninas, and no strong El Ninos. The fist strong El Nino that we get will blow 1998 completely out of the water.

There has been no cooling for the last decade. In fact, this has been the warmest decade on record. No matter which measure your use, GISS, HadCrut, or UAH, the last ten years have been the warmest on record, in spite of low TSI and several strong La Ninas, and no strong El Ninos. The fist strong El Nino that we get will blow 1998 completely out of the water.

Click to expand...

You are a sharp guy, Old Rocks, and I dont want to get into some pejorative back-and-forth, but we hit the peak temps in 1998, and since then we have been on a shallow slope down in average temperatures.

Lets look at the NOAA claim that the surface temperature increased .11° C during 2000-2009. Although they did everything possible to hide this information from the public, media, politicians, and even fellow scientists, by the late 2000s even die-hard alarmists were eventually forced to accept that the surface temperature record showed no warming as of the late 1990s, and some cooling as of about 2002. In other words, overall, for the first decade of the 21st century, there was either no warming, or no warming and even some cooling.

One of the consistent themes in the Climategate emails was consternation that the planet wasnt warming as expected

One of the consistent themes in the Climategate emails was consternation that the planet wasnt warming as expected by the models (that is, about 0.2°C per decade). For example, as early as 2005 the then head of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), Phil Jones, wrote in an email: The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only seven years of data and it isnt statistically significant.

Fellow Climategate emailer and IPCC contributor Kevin Trenberth wrote to hockey-stick creator Michael Mann in 2009: The fact is that we cannot account for the lack of warming at the moment and its a travesty that we cant. [italics added] Note the date: 2009, the last year of the decade. As far as Trenberth knewand he should have known as a leading IPCC authorthe planet hadnt warmed for several years up to that time.

Even Tim Flannery, author of the arch-alarmist The Weather Makers, acknowledged in November 2009: In the last few years, where there hasnt been a continuation of that warming trend, we dont understand all of the factors that creates Earths climate, so there are some things we dont understand, thats what the scientists were emailing about. ... These people [the scientists] work with models, computer modeling. When the computer modeling and the real world data disagree you have a problem.[1] [italics added]

Yes, you do have a problem, to the point where, in February 2010, after hed been suspended as head of the CRU following the Climategate scandal, and in an attempt to restore his reputation as an honest scientist, Jones came a bit clean in an interview with the BBC. For example, Jones agreed with the BBC interviewer that there had been no statistically significant warming since 1995 (although he asserted that the warming was close to significant), whereas in his 2005 email he was at pains to hide the lack of warming from the public and even fellow researchers.

The planet has been cooling

Jones admitted that from 2002-2009 the planet had been cooling slightly (-0.12°C per decade), although he contended that this trend is not statistically significant. In short, as far as Jones knew in February 2010and as the keeper of the Hadley-CRU surface temperature record he was surely in a very good position to knowthe planet hadnt warmed on average over the decade.
...

Curiously, another part of the NOAA website directly contradicts the NOAA report. On its site, NOAA offers a gadget that lets browsers check the temperature trend in the continental United States for any two years between 1895 and 2010. Heres what the graph shows for the years 2000-2009 in the United States:

Click to expand...

This graph shows a temperature decline of 0.73°Fahrenheit (-0.4°C) for 2000-2009 in the U.S. To get a perspective on how large a decline this is: the IPCC estimates that the temperature increase for the whole of the 20th century was 1.1°F, or 0.6°C. In other words, at least in the United States, the past decades cooling wiped out two-thirds of the temperature gain of the last century.

While the U.S. isnt, of course, the whole world, it has the worlds best temperature records, and a review of the NOAA data since 1895 shows that in the 20th century the U.S. temperature trends mirrored, quite closely, the global temperature trends. So, for example, between 1940-1975, a global cooling period, the NOAA chart showed a temperature decline of 0.14°F (-0.07°C).

In other words, it stretches credulity to the breaking point to believe that the global temperature trend from 2000-2009 could be a full 0.51°Chalf a degree Celsiushigher than the temperature trend for the United States (that is, -.4C + .11C).

The climate change hoaxers use computer models to predict that sea levels would rise anywhere from 15 inches to 2o feet because of global warming in the 21st century (the consensus number is closer to 3 feet).

But Mother Nature was never good at computer science. Satellite data proved that the first decade of the 21st century sea level grew by only 0.83 inches (a pace of just 8 inches for the entire century). Whats even worse (for the global warming hoaxers) there has been no rise since 2006. Now I know that some Democrats believe that Obama is a miracle worker, but even the the crazies at the Daily Kos would admit that controlling sea level is way above his pay grade. So the scientists at the University of Colorados NASA-funded Sea Level Research Group did what any other self-respecting cult members would do, they fudged the numbers. They simply added .3 millimeters per year to its Global Mean Sea Level Time Series. That way they could report that the sea level rise was accelerating, instead of what was actually happeningdecelerating.

The University of Colorado Sea Level Research Group is coming to their rescue. The NASA-funded group claims glacial melt is removing weight that had been pressing down on land masses, which in turn is causing land mass to rise. This welcome news mitigates sea-level rise from melting glacial ice, meaning sea level will rise less than previously thought. However, it is very inconvenient for alarmist sea level predictions. Therefore, instead of reporting the amount by which sea level is rising in the real world, the Sea Level Research Group has begun adding 0.3 millimeters per year of fictitious sea level rise to compensate for rising land mass.

The extra 0.3 millimeters of fictitious sea level rise will add up to 1.2 inches over the course of the 21st century. While this is not monumental in and of itself, it will allow alarmists to paint a dramatically different picture of sea level rise than is occurring in the real world. For example, the current pace of 8 inches of sea level rise for the present century is essentially no different than the 7 inches of sea level rise that occurred last century. However, with an artificially enhanced 9.2 inches of sea level rise, alarmists can claim sea level is rising 31 percent faster than it did last century.

This isnt the first time NASA climate-change scientists have fudged data. James Hansen is famous for it.

James Hansen of NASA is not just any global warming Moonbat, he is Al Gores global warming Moonbat. It was Hansens data that was used in Gores Oscar/Peace prize winning film. Hansens work is ruled by one motto: If God gives you rotten apples, tell everyone its champagne.
In October of 2008, Hansen made the announcement that it was warmest Oct. in history. A few days later after all the doom and gloom headlines passed he announced Oops, never mind, I was wrong. He only admitted the mistake after he was outed by other scientists. In reality, Oct. 08 was quite an average October. It Ranked 70th in the last 114 years.

In 2007 Hansen was forced by reporter Stephen McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest year in history was not 1998 as he had claimed, but 1934.

Well It wasnt exactly a correction. He fought tooth and nail against correcting the numbers, mislead the press and in the end Hansen didnt fully make the change. Judicial Watch filed a FOIA request and gained access to all the NASA Documents related to the incorrect data, It showed that unlike an objective scientist, Hansen wasnt very anxious to correct his mistakes.

According to multiple press reports, when NASA corrected the error, the new data apparently caused a reshuffling of NASAs rankings for the hottest years on record in the United States, with 1934 replacing 1998 at the top of the list.

These new documents, obtained by Judicial Watch through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), include internal GISS email correspondence as NASA scientists attempted to deal with the media firestorm resulting from the controversy. In one exchange GISS head James Hansen tells a reporter from Bloomberg that NASA had not previously published rankings with 1998 atop the list as the hottest year on record in the 20th century [not true].

Hansen announced recently that The 12-month running mean global temperature in the Goddard Space Institute analysis has reached a new record in 2010 The main factor is our estimated temperature change for the Arctic region. The GISS figures show that recent temperatures in the Arctic have been up to four degrees C warmer than the long-term mean.

Those arctic numbers that important to Hansens announcement were a figment of his creative imagination.

Art Horn, at the Energy Tribune blog, has blown the whistle on Hansen and GISS. He points out that GISS has no thermometers in the Arctic! It has hardly thermometers that are even near the Arctic Circle. GISS estimates its arctic temperatures from land-based thermometers that supposedly each represent the temperatures over 1200 square kilometers. Thats a pretty heroic assumption.

Meanwhile, the Danish Meteorological Institute is publishing sea-surface temperatures from the Arctic showing a cooling trend in the Arctic oceans during melt season since about 1993. Clearly, we have no accurate measure of the real temperatures and trends in the Arctic at this moment. Probably thats not very important. The Russians say that the Arctic has its own 70-year climate cycle. The files of the New York Times, in fact, are filled with stories from the 1920s and 1930s, clearly showing that the Arctic was as warm then as now.

But this is the moment when proposed energy taxes would start to scuttle 85 percent of the energy which powers the modern world and its lifestyles. Global climate alarmists, Hansen among them, are playing a desperate and short-sighted game of pass the energy taxes.

There has been no cooling for the last decade. In fact, this has been the warmest decade on record. No matter which measure your use, GISS, HadCrut, or UAH, the last ten years have been the warmest on record, in spite of low TSI and several strong La Ninas, and no strong El Ninos. The fist strong El Nino that we get will blow 1998 completely out of the water.

Click to expand...

Only because of shenanigans. Take away the "adjustments" and voila the 1930's are still the warmest. Certainly all the written history points to that decade being the warmest. They certainly didn't have snow records being set then, unlike now.

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!